Kerala

StateCommission

CC/13/68

ABDUL AZEEZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

KINGFISHER AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

G.K.SUDHEER

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

C.C.NO.68/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2016

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

          Abdul Azeez, S/o. Mammy Agampoyil,

Aviampoyil, Koduvally, Kozhikode District –

Rep: by his Power of Attorney Holder

Abdul Kabeer, S/o. Mammy, Marudungal,

Koduvally P.O., Kozhikode District.

(By Adv:   G.K. Sudheer)                    

                   Vs

RESPONDENT:

          Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. – Rep: by its Chief Executive

Officer – having its Head Office at the Qube C.T.S.

No.1498 A/2, 4^th Floor, M.V. Road, Marol Andheri (E),

Mumbai-400 059 and registered office at 12^th Floor,

U.B Tower, U.B City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001.

(By Adv:   M. Nizamudeen)  

                

 

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          This complaint is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties for compensation towards loss of business contract caused due to the negligent act and deficiency in service.

          2.  The complainant who is working in Doha (Qater) is represented by his power of attorney holder who filed this complaint.  The opposite parties are the Airline Company holding domestic and international flights from whom the complainant purchased the air ticket on 7/9/2011 to travel from Kozhikode to Dubai on 8/9/2011.  The complainant  boarded in Flight  No.IT 2474 on 8/9/2011 from Kozhikode to Bangalore by 16.25 hrs.        The immigration clearance was at Bangalore and when the complainant alighted for onward journey on the same day to leave for Dubai,               the employees of opposite party did not allow the complainant to travel    for the reason that the complainant’s visa had expired.  The endorsement made on the ticket “get being offloaded due to immigration (visa expired) hence refund as per fare rule”.  The allegation of the complainant is        that   he had a valid visa till 11/9/2011 at 23.59 hrs.   It is alleged in the complaint  that  the deliberate  and  irresponsible attitude of the employees of  the  opposite  party  had  caused cancellation of his journey at Bangalore and as he could not arrange another flight to Dubai, the complainant was constrained to return to Kozhikode from Bangalore.  The complainant had to suffer humiliation and got embarrassed due to the last moment cancellation of his journey and resulted mental agony. The complainant incurred Rs.5000/- as taxi charges from Bangalore to Kozhikode as he had to return to Kozhikode on 9/9/2011.  It is the definite case of the complainant that he bought an air ticket in Emirates Airlines on 11/9/2011 and travelled directly from Kozhikode to Dubai on 11/9/2011.      It is also alleged that the complainant could not reach Dubai on 8/9/2011 and he missed an important business meeting scheduled on 9/11/2011 and lost a work contract which would have fetched Rs.25,00,000/- as profit.  Due to the negligent and irresponsible act of the opposite parties by denying the travel on the pretext of complainant’s visa expired, caused huge financial loss, mental agony and the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the ticket charges and loss of profit. The complainant claims Rs.25,00,000/- for loss of business contract and compensation towards the ticket charges, mental agony etc. along with 12% interest.

          3.  The opposite parties filed written version contending that the opposite party is having its office at Bangalore and its Corporate Office at Mumbai and does not have Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the complaint is  liable to be dismissed.  The cause of action of the complaint has not taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  In this case, the complainant purchased the ticket of the opposite party for whom there is no branch office in Kerala and the complainant travelled from Kozhikode to Bangalore and alighted for immigration at Bangalore where the cause of action arose and found that the complainant’s visa expired on the date of journey.  The cause of action arose at Bangalore and there is no nexus or accrual of the cause of action within the territory of this State Commission.  On that sole ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The other contention raised is that the complaint is filed and verified by a person who is not at all aware of the incident and the complaint is filed on hearsay basis and the complaint is not maintainable. The allegation of the complainant is false baseless and concocted and the purpose of filing the complaint is to extract money from opposite party.  The denial of Boarding to Dubai is in accordance with the Visa Rules and it does not amount to deficiency in service.  The loss of business contract is exclusively within the knowledge of the complainant and it is to be proved with relevant documents.  As the cause of action does not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission nor any branch office of the opposite party in Kerala the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

          4.  On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the main question to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?

          5.  In support of the case, the complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and Exbts: A1 to A8 were marked.

          6.  Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the records.  On going through the records we find that Exbt.A1 is the Power of Attorney given to one Mr. Abdul Kabeer to file the case and the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and marked the documents.  A copy of the Passport of the complainant issued on 10/2/2011 and the date of expiry is shown as 9/2/2021.  On verification the seal embossed by State of Qatar, Exit is on 8^th  March 2011 and the Immigration Department Calicut Airport seal found as 11^th September 2011.  The complainant produced the Residence Permit marked as Exbt: A3 issued by United Arab Emirates from Dubai on 2/2/2010 and the expiry date 1/2/2013, his profession is Truck Driver and his sponsor is golden Truck General Transport is marked as Exbt. A3.  The Boarding Pass issued by Kingfisher on 8^th September 2011 attaching the flight details of complainant’s journey from Calicut-Bangalore-Dubai as Exbt.A4.  The invoice from Concode International, Kozhikode for Rs.16,000/- dated  7/9/2011 is marked as A5.  The copy of Invoice from Akbar Travels Calicut for Rs.23,000/- for the ticket issued to the complainant in Emirates Airlines for the journey on 11^th September 2011 from Calicut-Dubai is marked as Exbt: A7.  The legal notice issued to the opposite parties is marked as Exbt. A8. 

7. The main allegation raised by the complainant is that the complainant was not allowed to travel from Bangalore to Dubai on 8/9/2011 on the ground “get being off loaded due to Immigration (visa expired)”.  The complainant purchased air ticket on 7/9/2011 to travel in Kingfisher Airlines from Kozhikode to Dubai on 8/9/2001.  The Immigration clearance was arranged at Bangalore and when alighted at Bangalore Airport for immigration clearance to catch the flight to Dubai the employees of the opposite party did not permit the complainant on the reason ‘visa expired’.  The argument of the complainant is that he had a valid visa which is valid till 11/9/2011 at 23.59 hrs.  The deliberate hostile attitude of the employees of opposite parties, the complainant had to cancel his journey at Bangalore and returned to Calicut by car and thereafter could fetch another airticket from Kozhikode to Dubai directly by Emirates flight which resulted in heavy financial loss, mental agony and monetary loss due to the inability to attend the meeting on 9/9/2011.  The complainant is having a resident visa and work permit in Dubai and the visa expires only on 1/2/2013.  The complainant claimed for compensation for the loss of business contract as he was unable to attend the meeting at Dubai on 9/9/2011 and for ticket charges.

          8.  The main contention raised by the opposite party is on the territorial jurisdiction of this commission to entertain the complaint.  The opposite parties are having its Head Office at Bangalore and Corporate Office at Mumbai and are not having any branch office in Kerala.  The ‘jurisdiction’ envisaged under Section 17(2) of  the Consumer Protection Act states ‘A complaint shall bae instituted in a State Commission within the  limits of whose jurisdiction’:-

(a)  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there

      are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint,

      actually and voluntarily resides or carriers on business or has

      a branch officer personally works for again;

 

(c)  where the cause of action wholly or in part, arise the complaint instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office within its territory.  The offices of opposite party are in Bangalore and Mumbai and none will fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  The denial to enter for the immigration process was held at Bangalore and to entertain the complaint does not come under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Further  contention is on the question of ‘visa expiry’.  The complainant produced the passport, Residence and work permit showing the date of issue and date of expiry 2/2/2012 to 1/12/2013.  The residence permit is issued from Dubai.  The specific mention in the Residence permit is that Residence Permit becomes invalid if bearer resides out of U.A.E. for more than six months. The complainant made the opposite parties in the party array who do not possess any Branch Office in Kerala as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.  While adducing evidence the complainant produced the copy of Boarding Pass (Exbt.A4) of the opposite party confirms the cause of action arose at Bangalore.  Besides, during the evidence the production of a copy of invoice of the air ticket, Exbt.A5, from the Concode International, Kozhikode, against whom the complainant has not pleaded any allegation nor made a party in the party array as the agent of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  In the copy of visa produced by the complainant Exbt. A3 clearly states that ‘Residence Permit becomes invalid if bearer resides out of U.A.E. for more than six months’.  It is true the complainant is holding Work Permit from 2/2/2010 till 1/2/2013.  The state of Quatar ‘exit’ stamping is made on 8^th March 2011 evidenced by Exbt: A2.  Based on the date of exit, Residence permit is valid for 6 months and in the case of the complainant the six months is due on 7/9/2011 by 23.59 hrs.  The main allegation urged in the complaint is that the act of employees of opposite parties who denied his immigration clearance on the ground of ‘visa expired’.  The complainant failed to produce convincing evidence to prove the proper valid visa details.  On that ground also, we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          Based on the discussions made above, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Witness for the Complainant:-

          PW1 – Abdul Azeez.A.P

Exhibition for the Complainant:

          A1 – 20/12/2012 – Power of Attorney.

          A2 – 2/2/2012 –  Passport copy.

          A3 – 2/2/2010 -  Passport copy.

          A4 – Boarding Pass of Kingfisher.

          A5 – 7/9/2011 – Concode International Invoice.

          A6 – 22/9/2014 -  Copy of Invoice.

          A7 – Copy of Electronic Ticket.

          A8 – 6/8/2012 – Postal acknowledgment receipt

                   and acknowledgment.

 

Exbits. for OP – NIL

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

          KERALA STATE CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL

        COMMISSION,    

VAZHUTHACAUD,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

C.C.NO.68/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2016

 

 

 

 

Sa.